Our sub-topics are as below :-
a) Definition of freedom of speech and sedition act.
b) Chronology : Sedition Act 1948
c) Rules of Sedition Act
d) Seditious Tendency and Punishments
e) Pros and Cons
f) Relation between Freedom of Speech and Sedition Act
Understanding Sedition Act and Freedom of Speech in Malaysia
Every citizen has the right to freedom of speech and expression, so do Malaysians. However, it is becoming more difficult to freely express ideas in Malaysia when compared to the rest of the world. The rights to express one’s ideas or opinions is not constricted through only speech but can also be expressed through writing and other forms of communication. But it is a devastating truth that freedom of speech has been abused to the extent that critics believe they have the license to say whatever they want about the government whereas the reverse never applies. If it happens and the government takes action, these critics will claim that they are being robbed of their right to express themselves. What we fail to understand is that, while democracy allows freedom of speech, citizens must exercise this right responsibly because they cannot say anything, anywhere they like at any time. This applies to all citizens regardless of rank, status, class, race, gender. Not just that, another common medium is the Internet by which the netizens hurl all kinds of criticisms and rumours at victims, including the Ruler or the Prime Minister. Therefore, Sedition Act that was previously enacted by the British was amended to place limitations on freedom of speech and making it illegal to raise sensitive issues by questioning the sovereignty of the Rulers.
Much of modern-day Malaysia was born out of British colonialism. Britain’s interest in Malaya throughout the 18th and 19th centuries was primarily economic, revolving around rich natural resources and agriculture. However, in 1941, the British lost Malaya to the Japanese and eventually shifted away from colonialism. British then returned to Malaya and created the Malayan Union, which was opposed by the Malays and triggered the formation of UMNO. Due to this strong opposition, in 1948, the British abandoned the Malayan Union and created the Federation of Malaya. Nevertheless, while the nationalist Malays accepted this, the more radical Malays plus the Socialists and Communists opposed it. To stifle this dissent, the British introduced the Sedition Act (1948) and those opposed to the British and to the formation of the Federation of Malaya took to the jungles to continue their opposition as an armed struggle. In 1957, the Malaysian achieved their goal of de jure independence from British rule, although they were ill-prepared to exist as a completely sovereign nation. After that, the majority of the British military stationed in the area had left, a lack of internal control and racial tensions propagated by the overall constitutional bias decisively in the favour of the Malays led to communal racial rioting on the 13th May 1969 that led to at least 200 deaths, thus the government amended the Sedition Act and imposed restrictions to freedom of speech.
Constitution have been criticized by human rights advocates, who charge that "under the Malaysian Constitution, the test is not whether or not the restriction is necessarily but the much lower standard of whether or not Parliament deems the restrictions necessary or even expedient. There is no objective requirement that the restriction is actually necessary or expedient and the latter standard is much lower than that of necessity (sedition act, 2006).
Section 4 of the Sedition Act specifies that anyone who "does or attempts to do, or makes any preparation to do, or conspires with any person to do" an act with seditious tendency, such as uttering seditious words, or printing, publishing or importing seditious literature, is guilty of sedition. It is also a crime to possess a seditious publication without a "lawful excuse". The act defines sedition itself as anything which "when applied or used in respect of any act, speech, words, publication or other thing qualifies the act, speech, words, publication or other thing as having a seditious tendency"(sedition act, 2006).
Those acts defined as having a seditious tendency are acts with a tendency. Examples are to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against any Ruler or against any Government. Next, to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the administration of justice in Malaysia or in any State. Other than that, to promote feelings of ill will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Malaysia (sedition act, 2006).
Section 3(3) goes on to state that "the intention of the person charged at the time he did or attempted (a seditious act) shall be deemed to be irrelevant if in fact the act had, or would, if done, have had, or the words, publication or thing had a seditious tendency". This latter provision has been criticized for overruling means, a legal principle stating that a person cannot be guilty of a crime if he did not have the intent to commit a crime. A person found guilty of sedition may be sentenced to three years in jail, a RM5,000 fine, or both (sedition act, 2006).
No person shall be prosecuted for an offence under section 4 without the written consent of the Public Prosecutor. In such written consent the Public Prosecutor may designate any court within Malaysia to be the court of trial (sedition act, 2006).
There are various pros and cons to the Sedition Act of 1948. One of the importance of this law is to preserve the sovereignty of our country. This law helps to protect the status of our Yang di-Pertuan Agong and our Prime Minister that they are the rightful rulers of the country. As such, no one in any way is allowed to hypocrite that they are not the rightful rulers of our country. Besides, this act helps to protect the rights of the many races in our country. Islam as the religion of the nation or the status of Malay as the sole official and national language is also protected by this Act. Any kind of seditious comments will result as a breach of this law. In all means, the Sedition Act 1948 is enforced to avoid disrespect to various parties with seditious comments or remarks.
Some of the problems of the Sedition Act 1948 are how it contradicts with our constitution that envisages a democratic polity that respects the freedom of expression. “A democratic way of life” is also one of the five cherished goals of our national charter, the Rukun Negara. Our national vision, Wawasan 2020, also speaks of fostering a mature democracy as one of our nine strategic challenges. In other words, freedom of speech cannot be practiced at its fullest extent. Moreover, critics of the colonial-era law have said that the Act defines sedition too broadly and requires little proof for seditious “tendencies”.
According to Dictionary.com (2014) the meaning of freedom of speech is the right to speak without censorship or restraint by the government. Freedom of speech in a way relates to sedition act. If sedition act has been implemented in the law then the art of freedom of speech is demolished. If sedition act is implemented, the citizens now have to analyze what they have to say first than say it. This means that sedition act looks at how we speak, what we speak and to whom we speak to; even the slightest mishap of criticism might lead to anyone to be jailed from up to 10 weeks to three years. Many have been arrested, to be questioned or even jailed because of the sedition act, for example, Adam Ali, Dalbinder Singh and the famous Alvin Tan whom had fled to the America for asylum. All of them have been charged for sedition act and it is either for speaking publicly through social media and speeches. All of this people who have been charged are said to have criticized the government for their job or specifically the prime minister. This law affects citizens because sometimes certain criticism from the nation cannot be accepted and if someone says the wrong thing at the wrong time, that person can be caught because of the sedition act. Freedom of speech might cease to exist in Malaysia because of this law. In other words, Malaysian’s today have to watch what they say and instead of giving harsh criticism that might hurt the government’s feelings, Malaysians now have to give constructive criticism based on facts and evidence. Sedition act affects the freedom of speech in Malaysia and Malaysians are not free to talk so lowly of the higher ups anymore.
In conclusion, sedition act has long been in the law books but is now being revised. There are pros and cons towards this law as stated. The law itself is quite strict. If the sedition act of 1948 is implemented in the Malaysian law, freedom of speech amongst the nation is restricted to by a huge extend. Hopefully this Sedition Act can be revised to another more constructive, precise and concise law for a better chance for Malaysians to voice out their opinions in this democratic country.
References:
Sedition Act (Malaysia). (2006, January 1). Retrieved October 6, 2014
The Sedition Act 1948. (n.d.). Retrieved October 6, 2014.
Sedition Act runs counter to the spirit of the Malaysian Constitution. (n.d.). Retrieved October 6, 2014.
Malaysia. (n.d.). Retrieved October 6, 2014.
Freedom of speech. (n.d.). Retrieved October 6, 2014.
No comments:
Post a Comment